An Examination of Probation Officer Tasks by Officer-Caseload Type

• Author: Haley R. Zettler,Kelli D. Martin
• Published date: 01 August 2021
• Date: 01 August 2021
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0887403420980823
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403420980823

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2021, Vol. 32(7) 693 –717

© The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0887403420980823

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp

Article

An Examination of Probation

Officer Tasks by Officer-

Caseload Type

Kelli D. Martin1 and Haley R. Zettler2

Abstract

Prior research regarding probation officer roles and tasks has included statutory

analyses, time studies, and computation of daily tasks in relation to risk level of

offenders. However, there is limited research investigating specific proportions of

probation officer tasks by officer caseload type. The current study builds on existing

literature by providing an initial investigation into the daily tasks of adult probation

officers of a medium-sized, tri-county probation department in a Southwestern state.

For all officers, only 26% of tasks involved face-to-face contact with probationers.

While regular caseload officers had the largest caseloads, specialized officers were

more likely to supervise high-risk individuals. Court officers had the lowest proportion

of face-to-face contact with probationers among the three groups. There were some

significant differences in tasks observed between specialized and court officers and

no statistically significant differences between regular officers and specialized officers.

Recommendations for changes in probation practice are provided.

Keywords

probation officers, workload, caseload, tasks, community corrections

Introduction

Considering that probation is the most widely used sanction in the criminal justice

system (Kaeble & Cowhig, 2018), the empirical literature remains lacking regarding

1Taylor Callahan & Coleman, Bexar, and Hidalgo Counties Community Supervision and Corrections

Department, Abilene, TX, USA

2University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA

Corresponding Author:

Kelli D. Martin, Research Policy Planner, Taylor Callahan & Coleman, Bexar, and Hidalgo Counties

Community Supervision and Corrections Department, P. O. Box 6848, Granbury, TX 76049, USA.

Email: kmartin@taylorcscd.org

980823CJPXXX10.1177/0887403420980823Criminal Justice Policy ReviewMartin and Zettler

research-article2020

694 Criminal Justice Policy Review 32(7)

the role, duties, and specific job tasks of the probation officer. What research does

exist includes statutory analyses of probation officer roles (Bonta & Andrews, 2007;

Burton et al., 1992; Hsieh et al., 2015; Purkiss et al., 2003; Seiter & West, 2003), dif-

ferences between the roles of adult and juvenile probation officers (Steiner et al.,

2004), and role conflict of probation officers (Allard et al., 2003; Ellsworth, 1990;

Sigler, 1988; Sigler & McGraw, 1984).

This study is an exploratory quantitative task analysis of adult probation officer

activity by caseload type from a medium-sized, tri-county adult probation agency in a

Southwestern state. The analysis is designed to examine tasks by officer-caseload type

(court probation officer, regular caseload probation officer, and specialized caseload

probation officer) utilizing reports and data records extracted from the department’s

case management system. Our research differs from other more recent studies that use

self-report measures for time and workload analyses in that we use quantitative data to

exam tasks and differences between officer-caseload type (DeMichele & Payne, 2018;

Matz et al., 2018; Ostrom et al., 2013).

Literature Review

The growth in the use of community corrections as a viable alternative to incarcera-

tion, especially probation, has increased unabated for the last three decades. Year-end

2016, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported 3,789,800 were on probation, and an

additional 870,500 on parole, compared with 2,172,800 persons incarcerated in jails

and prisons nationwide (Kaeble & Cowhig, 2018). Initially, probation sentences were

generally reserved for less serious crimes, or low-risk offenders, who had not commit-

ted violent offenses and posed no serious threat to public safety (Petersilia, 1998).

However, due to burgeoning prison populations resulting from punitive legislation

passed in the 1980s and 1990s, probation became a way to alleviate already over-

crowded prisons; hence, probation offenders were no longer mainly low-level offend-

ers. According to Taxman et al. (2004), “probation rolls increasingly mirror the prison

population” and many are convicted felons (p. 3).

In addition to the continued growth in the use of probation, the profession itself has

undergone significant changes both in the types of offenders being supervised and the

factors impacting the work and day-to-day activities. The advances in technology

alone have had a tremendous influence on how probation officers supervise offenders

(DeMichele & Payne, 2007, 2012; Friel & Vaughn, 1986). For example, the use of

various types of monitoring and surveillance devices, such as global positioning satel-

lite technology, 24-hr transdermal alcohol monitoring, camera-equipped ignition inter-

lock devices, and hair, skin, and fingerprint substance use testing, makes the probation

officer’s job more complicated, albeit they do improve effectiveness of monitoring

offenders (Baer et al., 1991; Bracken, 2003; Lewis et al., 2013; Moran & Lindner,

1985; Newville, 2001). Probation officers have to learn about how these technologies

work, the benefits as well as flaws, then read and interpret reports, decipher any viola-

tions to report to the court. Moreover, the push to use evidence-based practices in